- This topic has 12 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
I reside in a 11 villa ground floor complex. There are elderly residents one has a dangerous path and steps to her villa, which represent a risk. There not standard height or angle and in need of repair. These represent a risk to the resident and visitors. As these are on common ground whos resposibility is it? The resident rang strata Management they said she had to pay to get it fixed. Or should it come from our sinking fund. Thanks
-
Replies
-
If it is common property then it is Strata reasponsibility to maintain which would be the best soloution in this case
BUT
If the stairs were installed by current resident then they are reasponsibile.
If they were installed by a previous owner and no bylaw registered the reasponsibility falls back on the strata once ownership changes.
If a motion was passed authorizeing the origional stairs to be installed by the owner at their cost but no bylaw registered then I would suspect that that the Strata would have to accept reasponsibility.
Hi Kimb
What reason did your strata manager give to justify the claim that the lot owner is responsible?
The only answers could be;
- The stairs form part of the lot owners property as noted on the registered strata plan, or
- There is a by-law registered that states that the lot owner is responsible for the maintenance of the stairs.
Just Get On With It
Seems to be right but there is one exception
Early Strata Acts stated exclusive usage did make the user responsible for maintenance without statement in the by-law, it is only new by-laws that states who is responsible
I can’t recall the year of the change but I think it was in or after 1975
Early by-laws for exclusive….user responsible without any statement
Later by-laws for exclusive ….states who is responsible
@leif said:
Just Get On With ItSeems to be right but there is one exception
Early Strata Acts stated exclusive usage did make the user responsible for maintenance without statement in the by-law, it is only new by-laws that states who is responsible
I can’t recall the year of the change but I think it was in or after 1975
Early by-laws for exclusive….user responsible without any statement
Later by-laws for exclusive ….states who is responsible
Hi Leif,
Can you please provide details on where I could find more information about this Act for NSW? Our block was built in 69 and we are going through fire upgrades at the moment and half the costs will be associated with common area that are associated with one apartment only. They use it like their private space and have even gated off most of it with a locked door.
Thanks.
If an area of common property is gated off and access by other owners is prevented then I think you should do something about that very promptly. Either get a general meeting resolution to grant exclusive use with the condition that maintenance is the unit owner’s responsibility, or you need to ensure access and inspection is possible by any owner at any time to ensure that the OC can observe, address and fix any safety issue that might arise in the area.
Granting exclusive use to a lot should not just involve passing the relevant motion it should include a financial contribution to the Strata from the lot owner who benefits as depending on the amount of land involved will increase the value of that lot significantly. Remember this transfer is permanent and cannot be reversed without the lot owner (and subsequent lot owner) agreement.
You need to work out the value of the land / sq m and then multiple that by the land being transferred. Take for example an extra parking space transferred from common property you could expect approx $10,000 depending on where the land is.
Hi Ferris
I am not an expert but the advice given to me was from one.
At the time the significant information was the original Strata Titles ACT No 68 1973
I think this was the section referred to:
58
(9) The proprietor for the time being of a lot in respect of which a by-law referred to in subsection (7) is in force—
(b) is, unless excused by the by-law, responsible for the performance of the duty of the body corporate under section 68 (1) (b) (i) in respect of the common property, or the part of the common property, to which the by-law relates.
The change occurred in the Strata Titles ACT No 147 1987 Act
SCHEDULE 1—AMENDMENTS TO THE STRATA TITLES ACT 1973
CONCERNING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES IN RELATION TO COMMON PROPERTY
But as in all cases if there is a dispute of significant costs get professional advice some that replies on this web are but I am not.
I had the same concerns as you after reading this tread before your entry and raised
– See more at: http://www.flatchat.com.au/forum/common-property/old-but-current-versus-new-responsibilities/#p10230
That does not answer your question but should help
Out of curiosity, if there is an exclusive use bylaw granted, and the strata levies for that lot are increased to compensate for the increased area – does that mean that voting rights also have to be altered in line with the increase in strata levies?
The only way the levies can be altered is by changing the unit entitlements … so, yes!
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
Thanks JimmyT. By my understanding the process to alter entitlements is involved, can be expensive and also requires unanimous agreement by everyone. Is that correct?
Changing unit entitlements is difficult and expensive. I’d be surprised if this is what has happened. Areas like private courtyards etc. are generally common property with exclusive use. Sometime however this is not formal if the building is old. It would help to get a map of the building and the boundaries of the lots to help determine how to approach the issue. Most of the time items like these would be owned by the OC like an exterior wall of the apartment etc. as they are external to the lot (unless there is a by-law of course).
Thanks Stratafied
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.